Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

116 So. 2d 761

Pollock v. Pollack

Herman POLLOCK and Lillian Pollock, Petitioners, v. Hymie POLLACK and Sara Pollack, Respondents. Herman POLLACK, Petitioner, v. Hyman POLLACK and Sara Pollack, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided October 14, 1959.

Rehearing Denied November 12, 1959.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1959-10-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"We agree with the District Court’s determination that we repudiated and receded from the Hancock rule in Scarlett v. Frederick, 1941, 147 Fla. 407 , 3 So.2d 165 , Dudemaine v. Shaw, 1944, 153 Fla. 899 , 16 So.2d 114 , and May v. State, Fla. 1957, 96 So.2d 126 . The existing rule on this point of law was correctly restated by the District Court when it said: ‘F.S. § 45.19, F.S.A., is not self-executing hut requires the moving party to seek dismissal before any affirmative action in the prosecution of the cause is taken subsequent to the required period for abatement.’ 110 So.2d 474, 477 .””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Passio v. Crowell, 141 So. 2d 285 - City of Miami v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

Relies on Scarlett v. Frederick · Hancock v. Hancock · May v. State Ex Rel. Ervin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1959-10-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 2006

13 state decisions

60195919601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1W.J. Gardiner, Daytona Beach, Hull, Landis, Graham & French and John L. Graham, De Land, for petitioners.

¶2Norton Josephson, Daytona Beach, for respondents.

¶3HOBSON, Justice.

¶4In Pollack v. Pollock[1] the District Court of Appeal, First District, held that the Supreme Court of Florida had abandoned the position it took in the case of Hancock v. Hancock,[2] to the effect that under provisions of the abatement statute (now § 45.19, F.S.A.):

"… the absence from the record of any affirmative action having been taken in the cause for a period of three years automatically abates the cause …."

¶5thus rendering it legally dead, subject only to an order of dismissal upon proper motion at any time after the abatement.

¶6We agree with the District Court's determination that we repudiated and receded from the Hancock rule in Scarlett v. Frederick[3], Dudemaine v. Shaw[4], and May v. State[5]. The existing rule on this point of law was correctly restated by the District Court when it said:

"F.S. § 45.19, F.S.A., is not self-executing but requires the moving party to seek dismissal before any affirmative action in the prosecution of the cause is taken subsequent to the required period for abatement." 110 So.2d 474, 477.

¶7*762 Since the requisite direct conflict is not present, certiorari is hereby denied as to both cases consolidated herein.

¶8Certiorari denied.

¶9THOMAS, C.J., and TERRELL, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶10[1] Fla.App. 1959, 110 So.2d 474. What was said there is equally applicable to the cause of Pollack v. Pollock, Fla.App. 1959, 110 So.2d 477.

¶11[2] 1937, 128 Fla. 684, 175 So. 734, 738.

¶12[3] 1941, 147 Fla. 407, 3 So.2d 165.

¶13[4] 1944, 153 Fla. 899, 16 So.2d 114.

¶14[5] Fla. 1957, 96 So.2d 126.

/116/so2d/761 · .json · Public domain